!;j|;f^i|ii^|!|;!i;i!iBiii;:);ii|iiii^^ 


'  \ 


f  v.L;!■^»+.Mier«sl55S'5alI?iU'^\ii■.^''Vc.t:l■*^:.v)*fe;,s,y:' V 


^,Zo.'o^ 


^^ 


^1  a&t  fHhtobsitH!  ^ 


PRINCETON,  N.  J.  ^ 


%. 


Presented    bpPvQ-  7S'rB.\i^u<7xr\\<2j  .A  ,^."X). 

1^,  4 


Di7nsion 
Section  ■ 


TiiK  (uusrs 


-IN- 


t  < 


^^- .-.  ,^Le^  ,/^v4-^^v7  l^^/of-^^. 


WHAT    HAS    CAUSED    THE    CRISIS? 


Ill  1S(;<)  the  Old  aiul  New  School  hi-aiiches  (jf  the  Pri3sl»yto- 
liaii  (hurtii  reunited,  adopting  a  "  Pliin  (jf  Reunion,"  the  Hrst 
yentenee  of  which  declaresi,  ''  each  recognizing  the  other  as  a 
sound  and  orthodox  hody  according  to  the  Confession."  At 
that  memorable  epoch,  which  was  hailed  hy  the  entire  Church 
with  devout  congratulation  and  thanksgiving,  who  could  have 
imagined  that  before  twenty  years  had  elapsed  a  Professor  in 
(»ne  ol'  our  theological  seminaries — and  that  a  seminary  whose 
most  distinguished  Director  and  most  distinguished  Professor 
were  prominent  as  leaders  in  ett'ecting  the  reunion — should  pul>- 
lish  a  volume  impugning  the  orthodoxy  of  the  accepted  theol- 
ogy of  the  Church,  asserting  that  "  modern  Presbyti-rianism  had 
departed  from  the  Westminster  Standards  all  along  the  line;" 
that  "  it  is  necessary  to  overcome  that  false  orthodoxy  which 
has  obtruded  itself  in  the  })lace  of  the  AN  estminster  orthodoxy  ; '" 
that"  the  theology  of  a  large  proportion  of  the  ministry  of  the 
Presb^'terian  churches  stands  in  the  way  of  progress  in  theology 
and  of  true  Christian  orthodoxy,  and  there  is  no  other  way  of 
advancing  in  truth  excejtt  by  removing  the  errors  tliat  obstruct 
our  path." 

"  This  i)olcmic,"  as  the  author  styles  his  work,  had  not  for 
its  object,  as  might  be  sujtiHised,  to  i)ring  the  Church  Ijack  to 
orthodoxy  according  to  the  Standards,  but  for  an  entirely  diller- 
ent — it  might  l)e  said,  the  very  opi)Osite — i)Urpose.  With  com- 
mendable frankne.ss  he  says : , 

"The  time  has  come  for  the  reconstruction  of  theology,  of 
|»olity,  of  worship  and  of  Christian  life  ami  work." 


He  avows  that 

*'  subscription  to  elaborate'  creeds  is  tlie  great  sin  of  the  Lutheran 

and  Reformed  dhurehes.'' 

He  asserts  that 

"  Presbyterians  an;  l^ound  b}'  their  own  history  to  meet  the 
Episcopalians  on  the  platform  of  the  Lambeth  Articles — (1)  the 
Hoi}'  Scriptures  as  the  revealed  word  of  God  ;  (2)  the  two  Sac- 
raments— Bai)tism  and  the  Lord's  Supi»er ;  (8)  the  Nicene  Creed 
as  the  sufhcicnt  statement  of  the  Christian  faith,  and  (4)  the 
Historic  Episcopate. " 

In  a  subsequent  newspaper  article,  to  which  we  shall  have 
further  occasion  to  refer,  he  says  : 

"The  E])iscopal  Church  lays  aside  her  XXXIX  Articles; 
let  Presbyterians  lay  aside  the  Westminster  Confession." 

It  might  have  been  supposed  that  the  Directors  of  the  Sem- 
inary would  have  promi)tly  informed  the  author  that  as  a  Pro- 
fessor in  a  Presbyterian  theological  seminary  it  Avas  not  his  busi- 
ness to  reconstruct  the  accepted  theology  and  polity  of  the 
Church,  l»ut  to  maintain  and  defend  them  ;  that  if  he  could  not 
conscientiousl}'  do  so,  he  must  find  some  other  field  of  labor, 
where  he  might  prosecute  his  self-appointed  work  without  dis- 
turbing the  peace  of  the  Church.  And  yet — AVilliam  Adams 
was  dead ;  Henry  Boynton  Smith  was  dead.  Instead  of  an  ex- 
pression of  disapproval,  a  new  professorship  is  founded,  into 
which  the  author  is  inducted  that  he  might  devote  himself  ex- 
clusively to  reconstructing  the  theology  of  the  Church,  by  sul)- 
stituting  whatever  he  might  regard  as  ''  biblical "'  for  whatever 
he  might  see  tit  to  rei)udiate  as  "  traditional."' 

The  Chair  was  founded  and  the  Professor  api)ointed  Novem- 
ber 11th,  1890.  He  informed  the  Board  of  his  acce}ttance  of  the 
new  professorshi})  January  7th,  1891.  INIuch  light  is  thrown  on 
our  in(}uiry  as  to  the  causj  of  the  existing  disturbance  of  the 
peace  of  the  Church  and  the  impending  crisis,  by  the  following 
extracts  from  an  article  by  the  Profess  or- elect,  [)ublished  in  TJie 
Independent  of  January  1st,  1891.  Alter  referring  to  the  two 
parties  in  the  Church,  the  conservatives  and  progressives,  he 
says  : 


•' Tlu'  conservatives  are,  lor  the  most  part  (leiioiniiiatioiial- 
ists,  ]»ut  the  pro^'ressives  are  imliHerent  to  (leiioiiiinatioiial  ditf- 
erence.  'I'lie  |)i'o<:ressivts  have  hroken  throuijli  the  harriers,  und 
are  ri'inoviiijr  tlie  o!)struetions  with  <ireater  (lili^rciiei-  a>ul  iiiore  ra- 
pidity than  the  conservatives  can  restore  them.  'I'hey  are  now 
the  most  powerful  jiarty.  Tiie  only  hope  of  the  (conservatives 
is  to  unite  the  conservatives  ot"  all  denominations  a<j;ainst  the 
projiressives  ol'all  denominations.  But  so  soon  as  this  is  aiteonj- 
]»lished  the  denominatictus  will  pass  out  ot  existence,  and  two 
;:reat  ]>artics  will  divide  Christianity  hetween  them.  The  old 
controversies  are  dead  and  huried  ;  it  is  impossihle  to  revive 
them.  Those  dillerences  that  <iave  the  denominations  their  cx- 
istenci'  liave  lost  their  importance.  'Ihc  Jiedj/cs  arc  so  drij  <ind 
lirittle  llitit  (till/  iiuin  <ij  ncrrc  iiKtijudlk  (/iroitf/li  t/ieia  iritlioitl  a  nay  itch. 

ft  OilliJ  lurd.s  rilK    STIMri..\Tlo.\    OF  A  (iUKAT    TIIKoLOUICAL    (ONTHO- 

VKKSY,  or  of  a  (jrcat  inond  reform,  to  fuse  the  broad  firof/rcffi^irc  party 
Into  (I  solid  cnthii.sia-'^iic  //(a.ss.  The  .sif/n-s  of  the  times  indicate  that  we 
arc  rapidli/  approachinci  .such  a  crisis,  that  irill  dcstroij  dcnominatioii- 
"llsiii  and  make  the  Church  of  Christ  one.'''' 

The  italics  are  ours.  In  the  interest  of  the  trutli  on  the 
important  subject   of  our  incjuiry  we   emphasize  the   avowed 

.J  views  and  anticipations  of  the  reco^nii/.ed  lender  of  the  ])ro<i;res- 
sives,  at  the  time  he  assumed  the  resjjonsihle  duties  of  a  Pro- 
fessor of  i)il>lical  Theology  in  a  I'reshytcrian  thcolo<);ical  semi- 
nary. 

Three  weeks  alter  this  announcement  of  an  impending 
crisis,  and  of  the  causes  which  were  renderin<!;  it  inevitahle,  with 
the  implication  that  in  view  of  the  ultimate  result  it  wiis  desira- 
hle,  on  January  20,  1891,  the  Professor  was  inauijurated.  His 
.\ddress  on  that  occasion  lias  now  hecome  historic,  .\ftcran  in- 
troduction in  which  the  late  eminent  President  of  the  Seminary 

I  is  referred  to  as  "  one  of  the  prophets  of  his  time,  who  foresaw 
that  the  revision  movement  was  coming,  and  a  transformati(ni  of 
ihii)lii(iji  icas  neeessari/,''  [Italics  ours]  he  announ<-cd  as  thesuhjcK^t 
of  the  Address  a  theme  most  ai)i)ropriate  to  the  occasion  ''The 
Authority  of  Holy  Scrijiturc  " 

We  presmne  the  statement  will  not  l>e  called  in  (piestion 
that  the  Address  was  a  painful  surprise  to  those  who  helieve  the 
Scriptures    arc  the  word  of  Cuh\.  the  iid'allihle  rule  of  faith   and 


() 

practice — at  least  a  tjurpritjc  to  those  who  were  not  familiar  with 
previous  utterances  of  the  Professor.  With  wisdom  as  to  method, 
if  not  as  to  object,  the  work  of  reconstructing  the  theology  of  the 
Church  was  commenced  at  the  foundation.  Instead  of  a  defense 
of  the  autlioritv  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  against  tlie  current 
assaults  of  rationalists  and  infidels,  the  whole  trend  of  the  Ad- 
dress was  to  invalidate  the  connnon  faith  in  their  infallibility 
and  supreme  authority.  The  supernatural  element  in  their  in- 
spiration was  minimized,  the  evidential  character  of  miracles 
and  predictive  i>ro|tliecy  depreciated,  and  the  reason  and  the 
Churcli — Itut  i)rominently  "the  reason  including  conscience  and 
the  religious  feeling" — presented  as  sources  of  divine  authority, 
and  so  far  as  indicated  in  the  Address,  co-ordinate  with  tJie  Scriptures. 
The  Address  was  received  with  favor  and  commendation 
b}'^  rationalistic  newspapers  and  periodicals,  and  by  the  unevan- 
gelical  religious  press  and  pulpit.  It  was,  with  scarcely  an 
exception,  disapproved  and  condemned  by  the  press  of  all 
evangelical  Churches.  Without  preconcert  upwards  of  sixty 
presbyteries  overtured  the  General  Asseml)ly  to  take  action  in 
regard  to  it.  On  the  recommendation  of  the  Committee  on 
Theological  Seminaries  the  Assembly  of  1891,  by  a  vote  of 
seven-eighths  of  the  Assembly,  exercised  its  veto  i)Ower  according 
to  the  compact  between  the  Assembly  and  the  Seminary,  and 
expressed  its  disapproval  of  the  appointment  of  the  Professor. 
A  substitute  ior  the  recommendation  of  the  Committee  on 
Seminaries,  {)roposed  l)y  the  minority,  referred  to  the  utterances 
of  the  Inaugural  as  "certainly  ill-advised  and  as  having  dis- 
turbed the  i)eace  of  the  ('hurch  "  and  reconnnended 

*•  that  a  committee  be  appointed,  (1)  to  confer  Avith  the  Directors 
of  the  Seminary  in  I'egard  to  the  relation  of  the  Seminary  to 
the  Assembly ;  (2)  to  request  the  Directors  to  reconsider  their 
action  ;  and  (3)  to  advise  that  in  any  case  the  Professor  be  not 
allowed  to  give  instruction  during  the  year  previous  to  the 
meeting  of  the  next  Assembly.  " 

It  was  therefore  virtually  the  unanimous  judgment  of  the 
Assemblv  that  the  ol)iectionable  utteranc^es   of  the   Inaugural 


were  disturhinu  the  peace  of  the  Church,  and  their  continuance 
could  not  l)e  tolerated  in  a  Professor  in  a  PreshA'terian  theolt>gi- 
cal  seminary. 

In  view  of  tliis  action,  and  of  a  Presbyterian  minister's 
ordination  vow  of  "  subjection  to  his  brethren  in  the  Lord,"  it 
might  have  been  expected  that  the  disturbance  of  the  peace  of 
the  Church  would  be  speedily  terminated  by  the  resignation  of 
the  Prolessor  or  action  of  the  Directors.  Instead  of  this,  a 
technical  issue  is  raised  by  the  Directors  as  to  the  legality  of  the 
action  of  their  predecessors  in  office — that  is,  as  to  the  legality 
of  their  own  action  as  a  corporate  body — in  entering  into  the 
compact  in  accordance  with  whidi  the  Asseml)ly  had  exjiressed 
its  disapjiroval  of  the  appointment  of  the  Professor.  The  action 
of  the  Assembly  was  accordingly  ignored  in  fact,  though  not  in 
form,  the  Professor  being  retained  in  tlie  discharge  of  the  duties 
of  the  new  professorship  without  assuming  the  title.  It  is  proper 
here  to  remark  that,  in  view  of  the  decided  sentiment  of  the 
Assembly,  as  expressed  during  the  discussion  of  the  report  of 
the  Committee,  by  both  those  who  favored  the  rej)ort  and  those 
who  i)referred  the  substitute,  it  is  unquestional>le  that  had  there 
been  no  compact,  the  Asseml)ly,  by  a  practically  unanimous 
vote,  in  the  exercise  of  its  constitutional  power  "  of  rei)roving 
and  bearing  testimony  against  error  in  doctrine,  and  of  sup- 
jiressing  schismatical  contentions  and  disj)utations,"  would  have 
"Xpressed  its  condemnation  of  theobjectionalile  utterances  of  the 
I  iiaugural  in  far  more  emphatic  terms  than  a  simple  disapproval 
of  tlie  appointment  of  the  Professor. 

The  committee  appointed  by  the  Assemldy  to  confer  with 
the  Directors  of  the  Seminary,  having  failed  to  adjust  the  iioints 
at  issue  in  the  interpretation  of  the  compact,  reported  the  result 
to  the  Assembly  of  181)2.  A  new  committee  was  accordingly 
appointed  to  propose  to  the  Directors  to  refer  the  matters  at 
issueto  approved  arbitrators,  whose  judgment  should  be  accepted 
by  both  parties  as  authoritative  and  final.  Instead  of  awaiting 
a  conference  with  this  committee  the  Directors  obtain  an  ex-parte 
legal  o[»inion,  and  on  the  strength  of  it  the  compact  which  had 


8 

originally  Ijeeii  [iroposed  l>y  the  Seininarv  Directors,  the  validity 
of  which  liad  for  twenty  years  been  recognized  without  question, 
during  which  time  the  Seminary,  under  the  conditions  of  the 
compact,  had  received  large  endowments,  is  declared  by  the  Di- 
rectors to  have  lieen  null  and  void  ab  initio.  Assuming  that  by 
this  ex-parte  legal  opinion  they  were  released,  not  only  from  all 
moral  as  well  as  legal  o))ligation  of  the  compact,  but  also  from 
ordination  vows,  "  to  be  zealous  and  faithful  in  maintaining  the 
purity  and  peace  of  the  Church,"  and  "to  be  in  subjection  to 
their  l)rethren  in  the  Lord,''  and  notwithstanding  the  practically 
unanimous  judgment  of  the  highest  judicatory  of  the  Church 
deliberately  expressed,  the  disai)proved  Professor  is  retained, 
and  his  ai)pointment  as  Prolcssor  of  Bil)]ical  Theology  con- 
firmed. 

A  movement  in  the  Presl)yterian  Church  to  reconstruct  its 
theology — which  is  a  very  diffeient  thing  from  a  revision  of  the 
Confession — might  be  ignored  so  long  as  it  could  be  regarded  as 
the  vagary  of  an  individual.  But  when  it  is  indorsed  by  a  theo- 
logical seminary,  and  the  reconstructor  placed  in  a  position  of 
prominence  and  influence  for  the  very  purpose  of  prosecuting 
his  assumed  vocation  more  efficiently,  Fresbyterianism  being  what 
it  ix,  the  progress  of  the  movement  must,  sooner  or  later,  bring 
its  leader  into  collision  Avith  the  constituted  authorities  of  the 
Church.  No  one  can  say  that  in  the  present  case  there  has  been 
undue  haste  on  the  part  of  the  authorities.  Those  interested  in 
the  movement  have  gravely  maintained  that  on  the  i)rinciple  of 
the  civil-law  statute  of  limitation  no  effort  should  now  be  made 
to  arrest  the  movement  because  the  effort  was  not  made  sooner. 

That  a  trial  for  heresy  is  to  l)e  deprecated  is  unquestion- 
able. It  is  equally  unquestional^le  that  if  the  fundamental 
])rinci})les  (»f  the  Presl)yterian  Church  government  were  faith- 
full}^  regarded  by  office-bearers  in  the  church,  trials  for  heresy 
would  never  occur.  l)Ut  it  is  also  unquestionable  that  if  these 
principles  and  regulations  founded  on  them  are  persistently  dis- 
regarded and  violated,  loyalty  to  Presltyterianism  and  fidelity 


f) 

to   ordination     vows    icniler    a    trial    lor    licrcsy    a    ri<i;hteous 
necessity. 

What  is  Preshyterianisni  ?  It  is  not  Con«i;re;,Mtionali.sin. 
This  simple  fact  is  of  itself  a  conclusive  reply  to  those  who  de- 
nounce the  arraignment  of  Dr.  Briggs  by  his  presbytery  and 
the  api)eal  of  the  Connnittee  of  Prosecution.  The  discussion  of 
this  case  reveals  that  a  misconcei)tion  as  to  what  Presbyterian- 
ism  is  prevails  to  a  consideralde  extent  not  only  among  outsi- 
ders but  even  in  the  Prcsl)yterian  ministry.  To  coi'rect  this  mis- 
concei»tion  wc  call  attention  to  the  fundamental  principles  of 
Presbyteriaiiism  as  indicated  in  the  following  extracts  from 
'■  The  Form  of  (iovcrnment,'  the  ecclesiastical  Constitution  of 
the  Presbyterian  Church.     (Italics  in  the  (quotations  ours.) 

"  God  alone  is  the  Lord  of  the  conscience,  and  hath  left  it 
free  from  the  doctrines  and  commandments  of  men,  which  are 
in  anything  contrary  to  his  word  or  beside  it  in  matters  of  faith 
and  wt)rship:  Therefore  the  right  of  jirivate  judgment  in  all 
matters  that  respect  religion  is  universal  and  unalienable."' 

"  In  perfect  consistency  with  the  al)Ove  principle  of  connnon 
light,  every  Christian  Church,  or  union  or  association  of  par- 
ticular churches,  is  entitled  to  declai'c  the  terms  of  admission 
into  its  (•(iiin)vntion,  and  the  <[ualitications  of  its  ministers  and 
members,  as  well  as  the  whole  S3'stem  of  its  internal  government 
which  Christ  hath  appointed.  In  the  exercise  of  this  right  they 
may  err  in  nuiking  the  terms  of  communion  either  too  lax  or 
too  narrow;  yet  even  in  this  case  they  do  not  infringe  upon  the 
liberty  or  the  rights  of  others  but  onl}'  make  an  imi»roper  use  of 
their  own." 

■•()ur  l)less('(l  Saviour,  lor  the  edification  of  the  \isible 
Church,  hath  api)ointed  oHicers  not  only  to  preach  and  admin- 
ister the  sacraments  but  also  fo  exercise  disci jiline  for  the  preser- 
vation of  l)oth  truth  and  duty."' 

"■  Xo  o})inion  can  be  moi'c  pernicious  and  absurd  than  that 
which  brings  truth  and  falsehood  on  the  same  levid  and  repre- 
sents it  as  of  no  conse<iuence  what  a  man's  o])inions  are."' 

"  Under  the  conviction  of  the  aliovc  princii»le,  they  think  it 
necessary  to  make  etl'ectual  provision  that  nil  who  are  adinUted  as 
taichers  be  sound  in  thcfdith.'' 

"  If  the  preceding  scrii)tural  and  rational  principles  l)e  sted- 
fastly  adhered  to  the  rif/or  and  strictness  of  its  discijdiae  will  con- 
tribute to  the  glory  aii(l  ba]ipincss  of  any  church."' 


1(1 

The  ''eti'ectual  jji-ovisioii '"  made  for  .SDundnesM  in  the  faith 
of  "all  who  are  admitted  as  teachers  "  is  as  follows  : 

"  No  candidate,  except  in  extraordinary  t-ases.  shall  l)e 
licensed  unless  he  has  studied  divinit_y  at  least  two  3'ears  under 
some  approved  divine  or  professor  of  theology. " 

He  is  examined,  among  other  things,  in  "  theology,"  and  is 
not  licensed  unless  his  examination  is  "  sustained."  He  is 
further  required  to  avow  not  only  that  lie  helieves  "the  Scrip- 
tures of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  to  lie  the  word  of  God. 
the  onl}'  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice,"  but  also  that  he 
'■  sincerely  receiyes  and  adopts  the  Confession  of  Faith  as  con- 
taining the  system  of  doctrine  taught  in  the  Holy  Scriptures." 
When  a  licentiate  applies  for  ordination  he  is  again  examined  in 
"  theology " ;  he  is  required  to  renew  the  licensure  vows  just 
mentioned  and  to  assume  among  others  the  following :  "  Do  you 
promise  subjection  to  your  brethren  in  the  Lord?"  "Do  you 
promise  to  be  zealous  and  faithful  in  maintaining  the  truths  of 
the  Gospel  and  the  purity  and  peace  of  the  Church,  whatever 
persecution  or  opposition  may  arise  unto  you  on  that  account?" 
We  may  remark  in  passing  that  the  latter  clause  of  this  latter 
vow  indicates  that  the  framers  of  the  Form  of  Government  an- 
ticipated the  consequences  of  fidelity  in  maintaining  the  purity 
and  peace  of  the  Church,  of  which  the  recent  trial  has  furnished 
a  notable  illustration. 

\'ows  similar  to  the  above  arc  rc(|uired  of  elders  and 
deacons  at  their  ordination. 

In  reference  to  these  ordination  vows  it  should  lie  oliserved, 
the  ethical  principle  is  api)licable  that  a  promise  is  binding  in  the 
sense  in  lohich  the  p?'07»^^tT  believes  the  promisee  understands  him. 
One  who  receives  ordination  to  the  ministry  from  a  presbyter}' 
is  bound  b}'  the  promises  reciuired  by  and  given  to  the  i)resby- 
tery,  not  in  whatever  sense  he  may  be  able  to  put  upon  the 
words  of  the  vows  liut  in  the  sense  in  Avhich  he  believes  the}'  are 
understood  and  intended  by  the  presbytery. 

The  above  quotations  from  "  the  Form  of  Government,"  and 
others  that  might  be  added,  clearly  indicate  the  distinctive  char- 
acteristic of  the  Presbyterian  Church  as  a  branch  of  the  Church 


11 

of  Jesus  Clirist,  nanu-ly,  a  common  kaitii  j'ormvlalcd  in  a  Confes- 
sion con(aintn(/  uhat  JWibi/lcridns  believe  is  the  si/stem  of  doctrine 
taiKjht  in  t/ie  Holy  Scriptures.  For  Iheiviaiiitenaucc  and  defense  uf 
this  coiiiiiion  faith  the  form  of  t^overnnicnt  is  liasccl  on  the  i)rin- 
eii»le  iiHi)hed  in  the  vow  of  .sul)jection  to  l)rethren  in  the  liOrd. 
namely,  the  ride  of  the  majority  constitutionally  exprcKised,  including 
the  intei'pretafion  of  the  doctrinal  Standards. 

In  the  extension  of  the  Church  the  maintenance  of  the 
]»rineii)Ie  is  provided  tor  Ijy  a  series  of  judicatories,  each  lower 
judicatory  l)eiu<r  under  the  sui)ervision  of  and  responsihle  to 
the  judicatory  immediately  al)Ove  it  in  the  series,  from  the  low- 
ist  whose  jurisdiction  is  over  a  single  congregation,  to  the  high- 
est whose  jurisdiction  is  over  the  entire  Church. 

The  simple  statement  of  these  fundamental  itriiuiples  of 
l'resl)yterianism  and  the  regulations  founded  on  them,  exposes 
tlie  fallacy  of  the  contention  that  the  decision  of  a  question  of 
doctrine  hy  a  single  preshytery  should  he  accepted  by  the  entire 
Cliurch  ns  authoritative  and  final— a  contention  the  more  re- 
markahle  as  tlie  fallacy  had  l)een  made  palpahle  l)v  conflicting 
decisions  l»y  two  presbyteries  on  substantially  the  same  issue. 
It  also  exposes  the  fallacy  of  a  kindred  contention,  that  because 
in  a  civil  court  if  one  tried  for  crime  l)e  convicted  he  may  ai)peal 
to  a  higher  court  but  if  ac(|uittcd  there  can  be  no  ap])ea], 
therefore,  if  the  (jucstion  whether  certain  doctrinal  teach- 
ing is  inconsistent  with  the  Standards  l)e  decided  by  a  jtres- 
bytery  in  the  affirmati  re  there  maybe  an  appeal  to  a  higher  judi- 
catory, but  no  ap])eal  if  the  decision  is  in  the  neyative. 

As  to  the  main  (piestion  under  consideration — the  responsi- 
bility for  the  disturl)ance  of  the  peace  of  the  Church  and  the 
graver  crisis  still  imjtending — the  above  statement  of  Presby- 
terian i)rinciples  and  regulations  founded  on  tiiem  would  seem 
to  settle  the  (piestion  l)eyon(l  the  i)ossibility  of  a  reasonal)le 
doubt.  A  Presbyterian  minister  receives  ofhcial  authority  to 
preach  and  to  teach  from  a  presbytery,  after  having  given  to  the 
presl)ytery  certain  ))romises — these  promises  l)eing  binding  in 
the  sense  in  which  helielieves  thej' are  understood  and  intemled 


12 

l»y  the  presliytery.  Not  only  docs  he  thcreliy  l)ccoinc  responsi- 
ble to  the  ju'eshyter}',  hut  the  jur.-^liijtcr;/  fherclnj  heroine-^  rc--<iK)ih'^tblc 
to  God,  the  Churchy  and  the  wurld  for  Jiis  tcacJiivg.  What  then  is 
the  duty  of  a  Preshytevian  niinister  if,  suhsecjuent  to  his  ordi- 
nation he  should  he  led  to  entertain  views  which  he  has  reason 
to  helieve  might  have  prevented  his  ordination  had  they  l)een 
at  that  time  held  and  avowed — if,  moreover,  he  re<!;ard  these 
views  as  so  important  and  his  conviction  of  them  so  decided 
that  lie  feels  it  his  duty  to  teach  and  to  })reach  them? 

This  important  practical  question  Dr.  Brigos  was  called  on 
to  decide.  For  altho  it  he  true  that  upward  of  sixty  meml)ers  of 
the  Preshytery  of  New  York  have  placed  upon  record  their  judg- 
ment that  his  notoriously  ohjecti(niabIe  views  are  within  the 
"  limits  of  lil)erty  allowed  by  the  Constitution  to  scholarship 
and  o])inion,"  we  presume  they  Avould,  with  possibly  a 
few  exceptions,  admit,  that  if  a  candidate  for  ordina- 
tion were  to  avow  as  his  belief  that  "  there  are  three  great 
fountains  of  divine  authority — the  Bible,  the  Church  and  the 
Reason,"  and  should  illustrate  his  meaning  as  to  the  authority 
of  the  Church  and  the  Reason  by  the  cases  of  Newman  and 
Martineau  ;  or  should  state  that  he  felt  it  due  to  himself  and  to 
the  presbytery  to  say  that  in  avowing  that  he  believes  "  the 
Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  to  be  the  word  of 
God,"  he  does  not  mean  that  the  entire  Scriptures  are  the  word 
of  God  but  that  they  contain  the  word  of  God  and  that  we  must 
determine  Avhat  portion  /.•>•  the  word  of  God  by  the  reason,  includ- 
ing conscience  and  the  religious  feeling ;  also,  in  avowing  that 
he  believes  the  Scrij^tures  are  "the  infallil)le  rule  of  faith  and 
practice  "  he  wishes  it  to  he  understood  he  does  not  regard  the 
Scriptures  as  infallible  in  their  historical  or  scientific  state- 
ments, there  is  not  a  presbytery  in  the  Church  that  would 
(»rdain  the  candidate  and  even  in  the  Presl>ytery  of  New  York 
there  would  not  be  more  than  a  dozen,  Dr.  Briggs  included,  in 
favor  of  the  ordination. 

To  the  ({uestion  above  mentioned  the  answer  clearly  in- 
dicatcil  in  the  principles  of  Presbyterian  Church  government 


referred  to  un(juestional»ly  is,  that  in  llie  case  t^uitpo.sed  it  would 
lie  the  duty  of  the  nnnister— certainly  under  all  ordinary  eir- 
cunistanees  his  duty — to  seek  an  interview  with  his  preshytery, 
and  state  fully  and  frankly  to  his  hrethren  in  the  Lord  from 
whom  he  received  ofHcial  authority  to  jireach,  and  to  whom  In- 
had  vowed  suhjection,  the  views  he  had  reason  to  helieve  they 
miiiht  regard  as  olijectional>le,  and  suhmit  for  their  decision 
whether  helieving  as  he  did  and  puhlicly  avowing  that  helief,  he 
could  remain  in  the  ministry  of  the  Preshyterian  ("hurch. 
Against  the  decision  he  or  any  mend>er  of  the  preshytery  would, 
of  course,  have  the  constitutional  rii-ht  of  "complaint""  to 
Synod,  and  if  needs  he  to  the  Assemhly.  Should  it  he  decided 
that  the  views  in  (piestion  were  inconsistent  with  essential 
<loctrines  of  the  Standards  he  should  then  peaceahly  withdraw 
fi-om  the  Preshyterian  ministry. 

A  minister  in  the  case  sup])Osed  may  decline  to  take  the 
course  just  mentioned.  It  is  the  course  indicated  in  the  terms 
of  the  Act  hy  which  the  Westminster  Confession  was  ado]>ted  in 
172'.».  it  is  the  course  indicated  in  the  Plan  of  Reunion  of  the 
Synods  of  New  York  and  Philadelphia  in  ITo.S.  It  is  inii)lied  in 
the  fundamental  principjes  of  Preshyterian  Church  government. 
It  is  involved  in  the  ordination  vows  "  to  maintain  the  i»eace  of 
the  Church  ""  and  "to  he  in  suhjection  to  hrethren  in  the  Lord."" 
It  was  formally  reconnnended  hy  the  Assemhly  of  187N.  And 
yet  there  is  no  statute  requiring  it.  A  nunister  therefore  in  tin- 
case  sujjpo.sed  has  the  legal  right  to  say,  if  any  of  "the  hrethren  "" 
regard  my  views  as  incon.«istent  with  the  doctrinal  Standards 
let  them  airaign  mc  for  heresy  and  test  the  ([Uestion  hy  judicial 
proc'css. 

For  reasons  satisfactory  to  himself  I)i\  Hriggs.  we  doulit  not 
dcliliei'atcly  and  conscientiously,  saw  lit  to  take  tlic  iattci- course. 
We  Were  careful  ahove  to  say  we  regarded  the  former  course  as 
the  projier  course  "  under  all  ordinary  circumstances. "'  We  can 
ri'ailily  understand  why  l)r.  P>i-iggs  sliouM  regard  the  circum- 
stances in  his  case  as  extraordinary.  In  his  article  in  Tin' 
Iinlependent  on  the  eve  of  his  inauguration,  he  assumes  that  (Iw 


14 

oi'ijanic  unity  of  the  Church  is  a  consuiiiniution  not  only  devoutly 
to  be  wished,  l)ut  for  whieli  it  is  a  duty  to  strive,  by  removing 
the  obstructions  that  are  in  the  way.  The  great  obstacle  is 
"  denoniinationalisni,"  of  course  including  Presbyterianism.  To 
reach  the  desired  goal,  denominationalisni,  with  the  exception 
of  denominationalism  based  on  tiie  so-called  ''Historic  Episco- 
})ate,"  must  be  removed.     He  says  : 

"  TJie  differences  that  gave  the  denominations  their  exist- 
tence  have  lost  their  imi)ortance.  The  hedges  are  so  dry  and 
brittle  that  any  man  of  nerve  may  walk  through  them  without 
a  scratch.  It  only  needs  the  stimulation  of  a  great  theological 
controversary  to  fuse  the  broad  progressive  party  into  a  solid 
enthusiastic  mass.  This  rapidly  approaching  crisis  will  destroy 
denominationalism  and  make  the  C'hurch  of  Christ  one." 

M'ith  this  concei)tion  of  "  the  hour  and  the  man  "' of  nerve 
needed  for  it,  is  it  strange  that  a  conspicuous  leader  in  the  pro- 
gressive movement,  indorsed  in  his  work  of  reconstructing  the 
theology  and  polity  of  the  ("hurch  by  the  Directors  and  Faculty 
and  patrons  of  one  of  the  most  venerable  and  influential  of 
American  theological  seminaries,  should  regard  his  case  as  ex- 
traordinary and  as  justif3'ing  a  virtual  challenge  of  arraignment 
for  heresy  ? 

By  amicably  submitting  his  progressive  views  to  his  ecclesi- 
astical brethren  and,  in  case  of  their  disapproval,  withdrawing 
from  the  ministry  of  the  Church,  he  would  indeed  prevent  any 
serious  disturbance  of  the  peace  of  the  Church,  but  "  a  great 
theological  controversy "  that  loould  agitate  and  distract  the 
Presbyterian  Church  is  the  one  thing  needful  to  destroy  the 
most  formidable  form  of  denominationalism — Presbyterianism  ; 
and  if  the  distraction  can  he  protracted  by  raising  issues  as  to 
technicalities  of  form  and  order,  and  thus  }n-eAent  for  another 
year  a  decision  of  the  main  issue  by  the  General  Assembl}^,  then 
the  continuance  of  the  disturbance  of  the  peace  of  the  Church  for 
another  year  is  not  only  an  ecclesiastical  privilege  but  a  Christ- 
ian duty.  Should  a  matter  comparatively  so  unimportant  as  an 
ordination  vow  "to  maintain  the  peace  of  the  Church,"  prevent 
men  of  nerve  from  In-eaking  down  the  hedges  of  the  Presbyterian 


15 

Chuivh  wlifii  l'r('.sl)yteri;inisin  fjtand.s  in  the  way  of  a  iTsult  so 
important  and  desirable  as  the  unity  (jfthe  Church  on  the  hasis 
of  the  "Historic  p]itiscoj)ate? '' 

We  do  not  jiresunie  to  sit  in  jud}j:nient  on  Dr.  lirig<:s  for  the 
course  he  has  seen  fit  to  take  ;  "  to  his  own  .Master  he  standeth  or 
falletli."     Hut  havinjf  taken  his  course  intellitrently,  deliherately, 
and  in  full  view  of  the   inevitable  consequences,  for    Dr.   iiriggs 
and  his  syiiipatliizers  and  in >nsyni])athizing  defenders  to  attri- 
bute tlie  disturbance  of  the  i)eace  of  the  ("hurch  and  the  graver 
crisis  still  ini[)ending  to  his  arraignment  by  his  presbytery  and 
the  actiiin  of  the  prosecuting  Committee  is  like  South  Carolina 
and  her  synii)athizers  and  non-sympathizing  defenders  attribut- 
ing the  War  of  the  Rebellion  to  Abraham  liincoln.     In  fact,  the 
history  of  the  deplorable  conflict  in  the  nation  seems  to  l)e 
repeating  itself  in  the  deplorable  conflict  in  the  Presbyterian 
Church.     In  ISGO  Union  men  throughout  the  South  denounced 
the  secession  of  South  Carolina,  at  the  same  time  declaring  if  the 
Federal  (Jovernment  shall  undertake  to  coerce  a  State,  in  the 
interest  of  State  rights  we  siiall  defend  South  Carolina.     Just  so 
now  many  are  saying,  we  disai)prove  of  the  views  of  Dr.  Briggs, 
they  are  "  certainly  ill-advised  and  are  disturbing  tlie  peace  of 
the  Church,"  nevertheless  if  the  Assembly  shall  undertake  l)y 
discipline   to  prevent  Dr.   Briggs  continuing  to  teach    and   to 
preach  his  objectionable  views  as  a  Presbyterian  minister,  in  the 
interest  of  freedom  of  thought  and  freedom  in  the  expression  of 
oj)inion,  we  sliall  stand  l)y  Dr.    Briggs.      In  one   respect   the 
revolutionary  movements  in  the  nation  and  in  the  Church  are 
not   analogous.     In    the    former   the   conflict  was  due   to  the 
attempt  of  South   Carolina  to  secede  from  the  Union;  in  the 
latter  the  conflict  would  cease  if  the  disturber  of  the  peace  of  the 
Church  would  ])ut  exercise  his  mKjuestioned  right  of   seces- 
sion.    Ditterent  cases  require  different  treatment.     L<l  us  have 
peace. 


